This article in the National Review discusses hard evidence that Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist "New Party"--a claim his campaign denied in 2008.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office

and:

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicagochapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

Sorry for the formatting...I took the quotes from the article, which NR apparently doesn't like. In any case, it is clear that the claims of Obama's radical, anti-capitalist past are accurate. I'm sure our cheerleader media will ignore this one, too.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Fascism: (a) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. (b) the merging of state and corporate power.

It is clear that from Obama's record, the only form of socialism he has practiced is 'inverted Robin Hood variety" ie ripping off the middle and working class to further enrich the élite class. It is clear that his record points more towards Mussolini's fascist ideal - version (b): the merging of government and big business. Coming to think about it, he is incorporating some of the characteristics of "A-type" fascism - as evidenced in his insistence on preserving sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA - Stalin, Hitler, Mao and any other advocate of dystopia would be creaming their uniforms over that one.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Fascism: (a) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. (b) the merging of state and corporate power.

It is clear that from Obama's record, the only form of socialism he has practiced is the "inverted Robin Hood variety" ie ripping off the middle and working class to further enrich the élite class. It is clear that his record points more towards Mussolini's fascist ideal - version (b): the merging of government and big business. Coming to think about it, he is also incorporating some of the characteristics of "A-type" fascism - as evidenced in his insistence on preserving sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA - Stalin, Hitler, Mao and any other advocate of dystopia would be creaming their uniforms over that one. And others... such as the passing of HR347.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Fascism: (a) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. (b) the merging of state and corporate power.

It is clear that from Obama's record, the only form of socialism he has practiced is the "inverted Robin Hood variety" ie ripping off the middle and working class to further enrich the élite class. It is clear that his record points more towards Mussolini's fascist ideal - version (b): the merging of government and big business. Coming to think about it, he is also incorporating some of the characteristics of "A-type" fascism - as evidenced in his insistence on preserving sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA - Stalin, Hitler, Mao and any other advocate of dystopia would be creaming their uniforms over that one. And others... such as the passing of HR347.

Uh...except true socialism only works when fascism is involved in some way. That's because it needs to be forced upon people. It's a system that goes against human nature.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Can you explain or show an instance where the "vesting" hasn't been led by a dictator who ended up with complete power while forcibly suppressing opposition, criticism etc? That is sort of the point. People declare socialism can't be fascism because, well the first stages of socialism and communism often just happen to look like fascism and the second stages, well the magically never appear.

Quote:

Fascism: (a) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. (b) the merging of state and corporate power.

It is clear that from Obama's record, the only form of socialism he has practiced is 'inverted Robin Hood variety" ie ripping off the middle and working class to further enrich the élite class. It is clear that his record points more towards Mussolini's fascist ideal - version (b): the merging of government and big business. Coming to think about it, he is incorporating some of the characteristics of "A-type" fascism - as evidenced in his insistence on preserving sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA - Stalin, Hitler, Mao and any other advocate of dystopia would be creaming their uniforms over that one.

I hit this in the progressives not knowing their own stuff thread....

In the late 19th century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fullydeveloped state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually evolve into a "higher phase" in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism.[43]

These later aspects, particularly as developed byVladimir Lenin, provided the underpinning for the mobilizing features of 20th century communist parties.

The problem for the socialists/communists, is that the first phase goes on forever and conveniently, looks exactly like fascism.

You love to dig up this dirt on Obama I see. Is this the Conservatives shit disturbers. Dig up some dirt on Romney which i am sure he has plenty to find about. Let it go man!

This is not "dirt." This is evidence of who Obama actually is. And it's evidence he and/or his campaign lied about it in 2008. This is as important issue. I'm not going to "let it go" because you 1) Don't like it and 2) Can't respond.

If you have information on Romney's past you'd like to share, I'll be happy to look at it. The problem you have, though, is that Mitt Romney--if nothing else--is who he says he is,.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Uh...except true socialism only works when fascism is involved in some way. That's because it needs to be forced upon people. It's a system that goes against human nature.

It depends by what you mean by "socialism". If you take it to an extreme, you get Marxism, which requires fascism to enforce on a large scale system, (such as a nation) because the majority of people don't want it. Look at the USSR - it was a failure before it got started. True communism only works in small scale situations - intentional communities - where all the participants are OK living in that system, and are free to leave at any time if they find its not to their liking.

Then look at capitalism. In theory, it's about all meritocracy and a free, totally unregulated market. In theory that is. Very good. Unfortunately, just like pure socialism and its failure to take human nature to account, pure capitalism also falls prey to human nature. Nepotism, cronyism, privilege, connections, influence peddling and bribery all conspire to destroy the notions of a free market. What happens when everything is de-regulated as regards business practice? If you're honest, you'll go bust, because your competitors who break the rules, or can garner special favors (influence, privilege etc) - will undercut you, or worse.

In my book, if we are to remain civilized while indulging in the benefits that moderation in capitalism can provide, then we have to pay a penalty of socialism.. or we end up living in a Blade Runner type society, where resources and wealth is methodically transferred from the middle and working classes, towards a 1% super élite. Who's for a Mafiocracy? Who wants plutocracy? Who wants oligarchy?

Oh wait... that's where we're headed.... look out everyone. And faux "socialist" Obama - the King of Corporate Welfare - is at the wheel.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

It depends by what you mean by "socialism". If you take it to an extreme, you get Marxism, which requires fascism to enforce on a large scale system, (such as a nation) because the majority of people don't want it. Look at the USSR - it was a failure before it got started. True communism only works in small scale situations - intentional communities - where all the participants are OK living in that system, and are free to leave at any time if they find its not to their liking.

Then look at capitalism. In theory, it's about all meritocracy and a free, totally unregulated market. In theory that is. Very good. Unfortunately, just like pure socialism and its failure to take human nature to account, pure capitalism also falls prey to human nature. Nepotism, cronyism, privilege, connections, influence peddling and bribery all conspire to destroy the notions of a free market. What happens when everything is de-regulated as regards business practice? If you're honest, you'll go bust, because your competitors who break the rules, or can garner special favors (influence, privilege etc) - will undercut you, or worse.

In my book, if we are to remain civilized while indulging in the benefits that moderation in capitalism can provide, then we have to pay a penalty of socialism.. or we end up living in a Blade Runner type society, where resources and wealth is methodically transferred from the middle and working classes, towards a 1% super élite. Who's for a Mafiocracy? Who wants plutocracy? Who wants oligarchy?

Oh wait... that's where we're headed.... look out everyone. And faux "socialist" Obama - the King of Corporate Welfare - is at the wheel.

I don't disagree with all but the last sentence. It implies the solution to many of our problems (including the erosion of liberty) is more government and more leftward solutions (socialism, if you prefer).

That's exactly the opposite of what needs to happen, IMO.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Mitt Romney is a very shallow and plastic person.He really has no stance on anything he says.He agrees with the rich donors who back him up financially.His foreign policy is what??? His current opinion on the women and abortion issue is what?? One statement he made I remember and so do thousands of other people LET THE AUTO INDUSTRY GO BANKRUPT! great piece of advice. Even his economic policies are for the rich and huge corporations not for me and other middle class and seniors out there.Unfortunately your party has no one really decent to run for the presidency even former president Bush Jr. was not to happy with him when he said I want Romney to win.His intonation and gestures said it all.

As far as the leaks perhaps the GOP Party is behind this charade as I would not doubt anything they would pull to get Obama out of the presidency.The WH is not that stupid to start these leaks.

False narrative propagated by the mainstream media and Democrats. Romney has held firm on most issues.

Quote:

He agrees with the rich donors who back him up financially.

You have to be kidding me. Some of the richest people in the world support Obama, including many A-list celebrities. He's as beholden to the rich as anyone.

Quote:

His foreign policy is what???

I'll partially agree here. He hasn't gone much into detail, though he has indicated what he'd do with China's currency manipulation and has laid out how he'd conduct himself differently (i.e. not apologizing at every turn for the nation).

Quote:

His current opinion on the women and abortion issue is what??

He's pro-life. He's been pro-life for over a decade. This is the one issue he's changed on, and he's explained why. But you don't care.

Quote:

One statement he made I remember and so do thousands of other people LET THE AUTO INDUSTRY GO BANKRUPT! great piece of advice.

Actually, it was a great piece of advice. Letting the industry go through bankruptcy would not have meant the auto industry would have ceased to exist. It would have allowed them to restructure. Chapter 11 is not the same as Chapter 7, you dolt.

Quote:

Even his economic policies are for the rich and huge corporations not for me and other middle class and seniors out there.

Hmm...really? Which ones? Be specific now, marv. What are his policies? See, I don't think you even know. You're a perfect Obama voter...one that they've built their campaign on.

Quote:

Unfortunately your party has no one really decent to run for the presidency even former president Bush Jr. was not to happy with him when he said I want Romney to win.His intonation and gestures said it all.

We do have someone: Mitt Romney. He's a good candidate. As for "Bush Jr," it's clear you're again just making broad inferences based on nothing more than your gut and own partisanship.

Quote:

As far as the leaks perhaps the GOP Party is behind this charade as I would not doubt anything they would pull to get Obama out of the presidency.The WH is not that stupid to start these leaks.

Man, you really are a dolt. The NYT said the leaks came from Senior WH officials. The President said that was not true. So, either the NYT or the WH is lying and/or wrong. The GOP couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it, because the GOP doesn't control the NYT or the WH. And tell me..if it was the GOP (a wild accusation of which you have no proof whatsoever), then why are DEMOCRATS flipping out on the WH?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It depends by what you mean by "socialism". If you take it to an extreme, you get Marxism, which requires fascism to enforce on a large scale system, (such as a nation) because the majority of people don't want it. Look at the USSR - it was a failure before it got started. True communism only works in small scale situations - intentional communities - where all the participants are OK living in that system, and are free to leave at any time if they find its not to their liking.

It is sort of funny how the people who coined the concepts don't happen to agree with you at all.

Quote:

Then look at capitalism. In theory, it's about all meritocracy and a free, totally unregulated market. In theory that is. Very good. Unfortunately, just like pure socialism and its failure to take human nature to account, pure capitalism also falls prey to human nature. Nepotism, cronyism, privilege, connections, influence peddling and bribery all conspire to destroy the notions of a free market. What happens when everything is de-regulated as regards business practice? If you're honest, you'll go bust, because your competitors who break the rules, or can garner special favors (influence, privilege etc) - will undercut you, or worse.

In my book, if we are to remain civilized while indulging in the benefits that moderation in capitalism can provide, then we have to pay a penalty of socialism.. or we end up living in a Blade Runner type society, where resources and wealth is methodically transferred from the middle and working classes, towards a 1% super élite. Who's for a Mafiocracy? Who wants plutocracy? Who wants oligarchy?

Oh wait... that's where we're headed.... look out everyone. And faux "socialist" Obama - the King of Corporate Welfare - is at the wheel.

Crony capitalism and many of the other things you mentioned don't happen due to capitalism. They happen due to government intervention into capitalism. How do connections or influence or cronyism help you survive in a market where the cost is the bottom line? They don't. They only help you in instances where the government is distorting the market with regulation that creates lots of large pots of money via taxation for distribution or limits access by creating onerous requirements for new competition.

By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?

By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist........

PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements.

Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.......

PES: A strong and just society must ensure that the wealth generated by all is shared fairly as determined by the state.

Obama: Favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)

PES: Collective responsibility makes society stronger when people work together, and all people are enabled to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life.

Obama: Favors collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail).

PES: The state must insure that economic growth is environmentally “sustainable.”

Obama: Favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.

PES: If unfettered by state control, market forces, driven by and greed and shift power to the privileged few, deepen economic, geographic and social inequalities, and create economic crises.

Obama: Shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce business to promote the general welfare as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor (oil and gas and coal) are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of “general welfare” (green technology) are to be promoted even if the market rejects them.

PES: Ensuring long lasting prosperity, stability and above all, peace requires effective coordination in the international realm based on democracy, mutual respect, and human rights.

Obama: Places reliance on international institutions, international consensus, and mutual respect in the conduct of foreign policy. (The United States must coordinate its foreign policy with international organizations and treat even rogue nations with respect in the hope that they will voluntarily improve their behavior).

PES: A strong state must preserve the public good, guarantee the common interest, promote justice and solidarity and allow people to lead lives rich beyond material wealth, so that each individual’s fulfillment is also part of a collective endeavor.

Obama: Advocates a strong state that offers the “positive right” of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

It is quite credible to argue Obama is a full blown socialist based off what he has attempted to advocate for and also with what he has passed in terms of universal health care.

You will never change your opinions and I feel I won't either. So let us pursue our viewpoints with no crass or insulting cracks anymore.

False. I will change my opinions based on facts. I form my opinions of, say, politicians (for example) based on what they actually do. You, on the other hand, seem to ignore almost everything Obama has done while at the same time casting vague aspersions on Mitt Romney.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Wow, SDW, I hope you are getting financed by the Republican party. I'm not being flippant here, but I'm curious, do you do other campaigning? Again, not that I'm against it (now that I've come down a little off my peak oil bender), but you do have the skills to do campaigning beyond AppleOutsider. Like myself, I think you and I may spend too much time here preaching to our respective choirs. I've started going to meetups (as from meetup.com) to meet people in person, and recently re-visited an urban farm nonprofit where I volunteered. It has been... refreshing.

Wow, SDW, I hope you are getting financed by the Republican party. I'm not being flippant here, but I'm curious, do you do other campaigning? Again, not that I'm against it (now that I've come down a little off my peak oil bender), but you do have the skills to do campaigning beyond AppleOutsider. Like myself, I think you and I may spend too much time here preaching to our respective choirs. I've started going to meetups (as from meetup.com) to meet people in person, and recently re-visited an urban farm nonprofit where I volunteered. It has been... refreshing.

SDW mentioned and it is true for me as well that if you look at the number of posts here daily, it isn't very many. He and I have just been posting here for a very long time. Last I saw my posting average was something like 3.8 posts per day. It's just been for over a decade.

In real life, I used to be pretty heavily involved in the state party apparatus. I actually went to the 1996 Republican convention and once took out paperwork to run for office. However most of the time I get my little political outlet here and then go hike, bike, camp or do whatever the day demands.

SDW mentioned and it is true for me as well that if you look at the number of posts here daily, it isn't very many. He and I have just been posting here for a very long time. Last I saw my posting average was something like 3.8 posts per day. It's just been for over a decade.

In real life, I used to be pretty heavily involved in the state party apparatus. I actually went to the 1996 Republican convention and once took out paperwork to run for office. However I most of the time I get my little political outlet here and then go hike, bike, camp or do whatever the day demands.

I'm the same way. I enjoy my political time, but I do lot of other things. I actually was elected as a school board member years ago, but served only briefly due to personal circumstances (trump...you remember, I'm sure). I do a lot of biking, watching Philly sports, smoking good cigars, and drinking beer! :)

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Living in Pennsylvania for a long time what did you think as former governor Ed Rendell when he was in office?

I voted for him in 2002. I was immediately disappointed. The first thing he did was break his property and income tax promises (deal with property taxes skyrocketing while preserving education funding, no raising of income taxes). I was never impressed from then on out. He wasn't the worst, but didn't do much to improve the state in my experience. Many of us used to call him the Governor of Philadelphia, as that seemed to be all he was interested in.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I voted for him in 2002. I was immediately disappointed. The first thing he did was break his property and income tax promises (deal with property taxes skyrocketing while preserving education funding, no raising of income taxes). I was never impressed from then on out. He wasn't the worst, but didn't do much to improve the state in my experience. Many of us used to call him the Governor of Philadelphia, as that seemed to be all he was interested in.

I'm the same way. I enjoy my political time, but I do lot of other things. I actually was elected as a school board member years ago, but served only briefly due to personal circumstances (trump...you remember, I'm sure). I do a lot of biking, watching Philly sports, smoking good cigars, and drinking beer! :)

I don't enjoy a cigar be it good or bad. However I've been spending some time refining me beer, wine and spirits palette for sure. ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

You'll be disappointed by Romney, too.

Of course we will probably be disappointed in Romney but then again, wouldn't we be disappointed in Paul because he cannot just declare his solutions in place via fiat? If the man cannot persuade the majority of Republican voters, and likewise has been unable to shift the House which he has been serving in forever, why do all the solutions magically come into place just because he is president?

Anyone can have a nice map. Driving the car to the destination is an entirely different matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Here's a thought: stop voting for the "lesser of two evils" because it has never worked.

This is a nice bumper sticker. I'd like the statement substantiated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yes, instead I should vote for someone that simply can't win. In the process, I'll help reelect he who is most definitely the greatest of two evils.

I do all the time and I'd argue almost all my choices are between two suboptimal solutions compared to what is ideal. Where's my iPhone that some small bit of customization? Where is an Android phone that is open and affordable but doesn't run like wonky crap? Hmmm.... sounds like my iPhone 4s is the least of two evils there.

I do all the time and I'd argue almost all my choices are between two suboptimal solutions compared to what is ideal. Where's my iPhone that some small bit of customization? Where is an Android phone that is open and affordable but doesn't run like wonky crap? Hmmm.... sounds like my iPhone 4s is the least of two evils there.

Really? Are there really only two choices?

Ever heard of Windows Phone? BlackBerry? You may have disregarded them as valid choices but that doesn't mean they cease to exist as alternatives. And who knows...you might actually like one of them if you try them out.

I actually like my BlackBerry more than the Android phone it replaced.

Ever heard of Windows Phone? BlackBerry? You may have disregarded them as valid choices but that doesn't mean they cease to exist as alternatives. And who knows...you might actually like one of them if you try them out.

I actually like my BlackBerry more than the Android phone it replaced.

Yes there really are only two legitimate choices for now in phones. I've certainly heard of Blackberry as I've given my son a Verizon Curve 8530 where I've installed the service books and I let him use it for $12 a month on a prepaid plan. I owned a Storm in the past and found it decent except for the browser and app selection which was crap. Windows phone may become something if Microsoft subsidizes it to the point of effectively purchasing marketshare for it. I've even owned a Symbian phone. As for liking any phone more than than something running the Android operating system, that isn't hard because the operating system feels like wonky crap.

In an ideal world, in a Ron Paul phone world, I'd be able to buy more than one type of iPhone a year. I'd have at least one other screen size to use for reading which I very much enjoy doing on my phone but nothing wants to display books well on a 3.5 inch screen. (Actually Stanza does a great job of displaying books on an iPhone but they were bought out to wither on the vine by Amazon which of course wouldn't happen in an ideal world either.) That iPhone would add tethering whether the phone companies wanted it or not just like it added iMessage whether they wanted it or not. It would allow some sort of quick reply on SMS which is one of the only reasons I or anyone else jailbreaks anymore. Apple would stop being stupid about links to outside stores and content like Audible.com content or Kindle or anything else cloud based which makes them look like asses.

Google would have an integrated email app instead of having Gmail completely separate from every other email service. They'd not have bought Motorola and they'd allow some sort of either mob based curating of their store or have some mechanism to keep malware and pirated bullshit out.

Blackberry wouldn't be charging extra to access their services since their phones use so little data and instead would be getting back into the game by telling carriers they could use their product as a way to increase smartphone uses but also ensure the customer likely uses less than half a gig of data a month. Their Blackberry 10 would be feature complete and shipping well before more than five years after the first iPhone.

Nokia wouldn't have sold out to Microsoft in terms of their own development and instead would have Symbian and Meego rocking away. Instead their debt has junk status and people don't even want to get excited about the amazing looking 808 because it is a dead end rather than an exciting product.

See you take it outside of politics and the trade offs we have to make are easily understood. It would be nice if there was a world where Blackberry and Nokia kept their respective niches or never became niches in the first place. However the reason people make their trade-offs and flock to large solutions is because the smaller solutions require disproportionate effort and yield a lower return. Ron Paul can vote 100% the way he wants but he doesn't get 100% of what he wants. He gets about 10% of what he wants if that much. Someone else might only be 75-80% of what I want but if they get me 60-70% of what I want, that is still a much better return. I could stomp my feet and declare I'm only going to play Words with Friends on Blackberry and not touch it until they port it. I could declare I'm not going to buy an iPhone until they offer a screen size I want or a quick reply sms function. I could declare I'm not going to touch Android until Google sorts it out and stops being evil in certain areas.

I'd be stuck waiting, upset and with no phone for a very, very long time. We want to believe we have a soul mate. The reality is most people fall in love with someone within 16 blocks of where they live. The reason the girl next door is so cute is because she is next door. Return on investment outweighs most claims of an ideal state.

When Ron Paul is elected he still wouldn't touch Social Security which means in reality, he understands the nature of entitlements and won't challenge them and that is where the big money happens to be. The Congress won't do enough of what he wants and if he comes across as strident or polarizing, then he damages his own brand. Paradoxically, part of being a leader involves being able to motivate and move large quantities of people and part of that movement involves considering what they want. You've got to get to 50+1 percent.

Why do you keep implying I'm holding Ron Paul up as some shining example of perfection? I simply think he's the best man for the job in the same way you think your iPhone 4S is the best smartphone for you (despite its flaws).

It all comes down to personal preference, doesn't it? You may rationalize that there really are only 2 choices, but in reality there are more.

Why do you keep implying I'm holding Ron Paul up as some shining example of perfection? I simply think he's the best man for the job in the same way you think your iPhone 4S is the best smartphone for you (despite its flaws).

It all comes down to personal preference, doesn't it? You may rationalize that there really are only 2 choices, but in reality there are more.

For phones, there are two choices and then there are those who are sticking with non-viable choices until they have no other choice. Speaking of past history, you're talking to a guy who sold his Amiga 500 back when to buy his Mac Classic II. I gave up 4096 colors for two in order to go to the platform where all the music apps were located. My roommate and college contemporary who was a decent size developer for the Atari ST, well he works for Microsoft now.

What good does it do to be the best man for a job you won't get hired to do or be given? I don't think my iPhone 4S is the best smartphone for me. It is the choice I make among those that are viable. The non-viable choice would involve me taking the entire innards out of an iPhone and hacking them into a 4.3 inch screen and case. Maybe it would even be modeled after the Nokia Lumia 900 just to screw with people.

No one appears to be doing that for the iPhone though and it probably has a lot to do with no profit to be made, too few people caring and also it being way too much work. When you get 10-12% of the members of a registered party which is 35% of the total electorate, that won't make much happen.

In short, what I want is not a solution. It might be the starting point to finding the least compromised and best solution I can live with for now. That is what Romney is, heck that is what the entire REPUBLICAN PARTY is for me for now. I am in the minority within that party on a solid half dozen issues but the Democrats are even further away than that for me now. Will there be a party that ends Pax Americana, stops taxing us via inflation, enforces our borders in part by bringing our troops home, stops spending every nickle it can beg, borrow or steal, enforces fair trade and finally stops generational theft? Even if there is that party will they hold any seats and actually control any levers of government to actually make law? One can hope but in the meantime I don't enable, support or help anything that moves us even further away from what I want.